Main relief cannot be granted at interim stage.

Common Judgment:

V. Dhanapalan, J.

The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Limited, Mumbai which has been impleaded as second defendant in C.S. No.750 of 1999, has preferred the present Appeals against the interim orders made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in O.A. No.42 of 2000 and Appln. No.280 of 2000 in C.S. 750 of 1999.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed a suit for

a.declaration that the shares pledged by the first plaintiff and belonging to the second plaintiff stand discharged as security b.mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the shares listed in

Annexure to the plaint to the plaintiffs and c.direction to the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the costs of the suit.

3. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs is as follows:

a. The first plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacture of ceramic tiles and the second plaintiff is an investment company and interalia holds shares in the first plaintiff.

The defendant is, amongst other things, engaged in the business of providing finance by way of Bill Discounting facilities to large industries. In the course of its business, the first plaintiff discounted with the defendant, two Bills of Exchange, both dated 211. 1996, drawn by Neycer India Limited and accepted by the first plaintiff for Rs.55,33,500/- and Rs.56,04,900/- respectively. The plaintiffs, at the request of the defendant and in order to secure the amounts under the said Bills, pledged with the defendant 11,10,380 Equity Shares of Rs.10/- each of the first plaintiff and standing in the name of the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff was making several payments towards the amounts due under the Bills and thus, two Bills were fully paid and discharged by the first plaintiff and no amount remained due in respect of the same. As per the statement of account, since an excess amount of Rs.21,24,560/- was made by the first plaintiff to the defendant, the plaintiff was entitled to recover such amount from the defendant and thus, the defendant became bound and liable to endorse such payments on the bills and also to release and return the pledged shares to the plaintiffs since such shares have been pledged solely for the purpose of securing the amounts due in respect of such Bills.

b. While so, the plaintiffs received a notice from Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd., the appellant in the present appeals, on 08.09.1997 wherein the appellant herein purported to state that the said two Bills which had been discounted by the defendant, had been negotiated by the defendant in favour of the said Bank on 25.02.1997 and the said Bank called upon the first plaintiff to make immediate payment in respect of the said Bills with overdue interest. The first plaintiff, therefore, explained to the Bank the position with regard to discharge of bills by forwarding a statement of account and also made a reference to the Share Certificate which had been pledged by the plaintiff with the defendant and the defendant was called upon to handover such Share Certificate to the plaintiff in view of the fact that no amount was pending under the relevant Bills. Thus, the defendant has acted fraudulently in the matter after receiving payments in respect of the above said two Bills, thereby unjustly enriching themselves. In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs have also pledged valuable security in the form shares in the first plaintiff’s company in the name of the second plaintiff for due payment of the above said Bills.

.4. Along with the suit, the respondents/plaintiffs had also filed O.A. No.630 of 1999 for interim injunction restraining the third respondent herein from dealing with their shares in any manner. Since the third respondent herein filed a counter in O.A. No.630 of 1999 stating that the subject shares have been given as commercial security to the appellants herein, the respondents/plaintiffs, with a view to ascertain the truth regarding the fate of their shares, filed Application No.279 of 2000 seeking to impl